A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – The Bill of Rights

Legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun control issue have differed over the intended meaning of the Founding Fathers. Did they mean that only those citizens who are organized into official militias by local or regional jurisdictions have the right to bear arms? Or that anyone can keep arms because they might eventually join a “well-regulated” militia?

When the founders penned “a well-regulated militia”, it was the common man living a common life that were called to take up their arms and enlisted in the so-called militia that initially confronted the British coming to seize their firearms. The year was 1775, five companies of Minutemen and five of non-Minuteman militia occupied a hill with groups of other men streaming in, totaling about 400 against the British light infantry companies from the 4th, 10th, and 43rd Regiments of Foot under Captain Walter Laurie, a force totaling about 90-95 men.  A brief exchange of fire ensued which saw the first instance of Americans firing to deadly effect on British regulars, after which the British retreated. Ralph Waldo Emerson called the first shot of this skirmish the “shot heard round the world” in his 1837 poem “Concord Hymn“.

The founders of America saw things different from modern day collectivists. The writers of the Constitution did not establish the Second Amendment to protect sportsmen and hunters.

The intent of the Second Amendment is to protect your individual right of freedom and to protect you from a tyrannical State.

In establishing the Second Amendment, the founding fathers recognized that as long as there was an armed populace, a government could not arbitrarily force its dictatorial will on the people.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

It is the individual right to keep and bear arms that secures our individual freedom and provides the security of our life and property.

Indeed, if it were not for our 2nd Amendment rights, we would be helpless to defend any of the other rights guaranteed us by the U.S. Constitution.  It might be said all other rights rests or falls on this one.

In order to preserve and protect the freedom granted by the Constitution, it is not only your individual responsibility as an empowered citizen, but it is your “duty” as Americans to protect and preserve that liberty.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. – Patrick Henry.

We don’t need fewer guns in our communities, we need more guns. Every citizen ought to be armed and experienced in the use of their weapons if this nation is to remain free.

The only obstacle to the collectivist agenda of controlling America is the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms. That is why there is such an effort to take away your guns. If every American was armed, our government could never oppress us, just with the knowledge that we all had that weapon at our disposal.

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

The question today seems to be, “Who is better to provide for your well-being and to protect you from those wishing to harm you… yourself or the State?

It is, perhaps, the “individualism” of the American patriot that stands front and center in the modern debate over the Second Amendment.

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. – Patrick Henry

Collectivist influences in our society believe the State is supreme and the individual exists only to serve the State. Any freedom the individual citizen may enjoy is therefore granted by the State, as a collective or group right, who acts as their provider and protector.

Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder, along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice–co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller – in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a “collective” right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration

Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony to Congress on the Second Amendment

Disarming the American People

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

The collectivist solution to the so-called “gun problem” is the incremental implementation of legislation, which will increasingly restrict the ownership of arms until which time they are positioned to replace the 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws controlling or prohibiting arms with one law — no guns, except perhaps those narrowly defined for sporting purposes.

Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some Communist states such as the People’s Republic of China are examples of totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Bolshevik Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929; the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” – Joseph Stalin

Gun control advocates have used the Fabian Socialist technique of incrementalism to slowly strip away the Constitutional rights of Americans to own and bear arms. They know they cannot simply declare one day that all guns will be outlawed because American citizens would not tolerate that. However, if they can piece-by-piece, step-by-step dismantle this fundamental right, one day the Second Amendment will become nothing more than a historical footnote.

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

In the chaos and trauma that accompanied the levee collapses in New Orleans in 2005, the federal government’s response was to illegally seize fire arms from hundreds of law abiding citizens while allowing criminals to run amok.

Authorities in King, North Carolina declared a state of emergency following heavy snowfalls in 2010 which not only prohibited citizens from driving on the snow-packed roads, but also banned the sale alcohol and banned the purchase or possession of firearms outside of their homes.

“Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, January 1994.

Every step the collectivist anti-gun people take should be resisted. Their arguments are not “reasonable” as they like to claim. They are, in fact, incremental steps to dismantle the Constitution of the United States and transfer all power from the people into the hands of a ruling elite minority.

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” – Attorney General Janet Reno

Beto Defends Proposal To Confiscate Assault Weapons | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Gun Control Laws

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

In the US, the first major law that restricted the availability of a gun and induced gun control was passed in 1934 and it was called the Federal Gun Control Act. This law restricted the sale of fully automatic weapons, including machine guns etc. Another act followed in 1938, which said that people convicted of felony could not posses a weapon and that all sellers and dealers needed to be licensed.

I suppose those early laws made some sense and seemed reasonable… except, the 1938 law introduced licensing to the mix and therefore government control.

The Gun Control Act Of 1968 was more severe on gun control. It regulated the use of imported weapons and also broadened the gun possession law stating that anyone who was mentally unstable, who was convicted for felony, who used illegal drugs, and minors were not allowed to posses weapons. The licensing requirements for dealers were also further strengthened. In later years subsequent bans were imposed on bullets which could pierce bullet proof clothing and the use of semi- automatic assault weapons.

Retired Police Officer Stuns Dems: ‘I Will NOT Comply’ With Gun Ban

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after James Brady who was seriously injured when John Hinckley Jr. made an attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life on March 30, 1981 came into effect on February 28, 1994. The act was a result of years of lobbying by Sarah Brady, James’s wife who became a huge gun control advocate after the shooting of her husband. The act imposed a five day waiting period for anyone who wished to purchase a weapon. During these five days, the police had to carry out a background check on the purchaser. However, now the act has been revised. All dealers can now access a national computer system and perform a background check instantly. So if the person comes out clean, he can purchase the weapon instantly.

Where 2020 Democrats stand on guns

Congress proposes 50% tax on guns and ammunition in the US

Congress is considering a bill to require citizens to apply for a federal license before being able to purchase a firearm. And the government would have the authority to deny a license, even if the applicant has no criminal history or mental health issues. That makes this essentially a nationwide “red flag law.” The government can deny or revoke a license if they arbitrarily deem you to be a problem. The proposed law would also tax firearms at 30% and ammunition at 50%.

Red Flag Laws
A red flag law is a so-called gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. Under Red Flag laws, your guns can all be seized, and you can be prohibited from owning firearms when you haven’t been convicted or even charged with any crime.

Opponents of red flag laws argue that such legislation infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to due process of law, and object to ex parte hearings.

State Laws
It is now a crime in many states to leave a weapon in any place which can be accessed by a minor.

Although seven states prohibit carrying a concealed weapon altogether, people in many other states are required to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.  There is a trend in some states, like Vermont and Kansas, that do not require a permit or licensing requirements for concealed weapons.

More than 20 states completely regulate all kinds of sales including secondary sales through registration and licensing. There are some states which do not have any norms with regards to this and a weapon is freely available for anyone who wishes to purchase it. This is called the Gun-Show loophole.

Gun Registration An Excuse for Increased Police Terror

Gun registration laws are really intended more for the controlling authorities than keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. When your guns are registered, that information is also placed into a national database used by authorities to identify high risk targets.

When Child Protection Services personnel raid a home where there are registered firearms, they are more likely to be supported by armed police officers who storm the residence with overwhelming force. The pretext for the paramilitary night-time invasion and kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.”

When drug enforcement agents execute their war on drugs raids, they do so with overwhelming firepower, especially when they know there are guns present.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Ben Franklin

GUN CONFISCATION MADE EASY
When you register your guns, your name and address is put into a national database that can be used by the authorities when it comes time to confiscate your weapons. If the American people want to remain free, they must resist all attempts to register their guns.

Back Door Gun Control with Government Intrusion into Private Industry

Following the success of government persuasion tactics with the Tobacco industry, collectivists have scored another victory in their incremental dismantling of the United States Constitution with their intrusion into private business.

Their tactic was to litigate the gun industry out of business.  Rather than focusing on the individuals committing crimes using guns, numerous cases of victims of firearms violence had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.

In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers with a $433 million lawsuit against 38 retailers, distributors and manufacturers of firearms on the grounds that the guns create a massive and deadly public nuisance. Never mind that Chicago has been turned in to a killing field by years of liberal Socialist policies.  There are no gun shops in Chicago and it’s illegal to possess a handgun unless it was registered prior to March 30, 1982.

Falling victim to the heavy hand of government and facing lawsuits from some 30 state, city and local governments, the nations top gun manufacturer have been coerced into changing its business practices. Feeling the economic pressure of a lawsuit happy government, Smith & Wesson in 2000 agreed to include child safety locks, ensure background checks both at retail stores and gun shows, and to take so-called ballistic fingerprints of its guns. The gun maker said, in a statement that the agreement reached with the federal government would ensure “the viability of Smith & Wesson as an ongoing business entity in the face of the crippling cost of litigation.”

Smith & Wesson should take a cue from the recent tobacco settlements. As we have seen following the agreement between the state Attorneys General and the tobacco companies, it has been shown that once government gets the taste of money or power in their teeth, previous agreements are ignored and greed sets into motion events that were never anticipated.

In an effort to stop the baseless attack on the firearms industry, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by George W. Bush in 2005, protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Following the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims against the manufacturer (Remington), the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. However, on March 14th, 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, allowing plaintiffs to continue their suit against Remington.

Gun Control and Crime

To justify the outlawing of guns and other personal weapons, collectivist power seekers and other liberal groups have used the excuse that such a law would decrease the crime wave. Their propaganda is designed to convince American citizens that the right to bear arms is too dangerous.

Rep Carolyn Maloney on the New Bill to Fight Gun Trafficking

Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act,” H.R. 2554, a gun-grabbing bill little noticed by the corporate media. It’s not surprising that Democrats continue to introduce legislation designed to chip away at the Second Amendment, however, Maloney and her co-conspirators are using the government’s gun smuggling program, Fast and Furious, as an excuse to clamp down on “illegal trafficking” in firearms. The corporate media is completely oblivious to this hypocrisy. Maloney’s bill is being portrayed as an effort to combat the drug cartels and put an end to the violence in Mexico at the same time congressional hearings reveal the government is responsible for arming them.

Dems Sit in Silence as Witness Debunks Their ‘Assault’ Rifle Lies

Banning the Sale of Guns to those on a Terrorist Watch List

Among the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take?

The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans.  Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.

Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.

The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment. Now it is being used to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Legislation sponsored by the The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms.

This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.

The Brady Bill

Liberals brag about how many criminals and other miscreants the Brady law stopped from buying a gun.

Bill Clinton claimed that over 60,000 people with criminal records were prevented from buying guns. What they don’t tell you is that most crimes are committed with unregistered and/or stolen weapons. The Brady law didn’t stop Buford Oneal Furrow, for example, who was not carrying legal guns in his shooting rampage in the Jewish center in Los Angeles.

If removing guns from society makes us safer, how do they explain why the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools?

Outlawing of arms will only increase crime.

The Brady bill is just an inconvenience, the cost of a criminal doing business. The weapons would become more readily and easily available and attainable upon the black market.

• New Jersey adopted what might be “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
• In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
• In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
• Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
• Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

I’ve heard it said somewhere, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.” If the situation were reversed and everyone was required by law to own and carry a gun, then crime would decrease because all the criminals would know that everyone has a gun, not just them. Liberal gun control advocates don’t like to mention the 2 – 2.5 million cases each year where gun owners prevented bodily harm to them, their family and friends because they were armed.

Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

“History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.” [Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, December 8, 2008]

North Carolina man’s speech at city council meeting about gun rights goes viral

It’s For the Children

Gun control proponents have used the emotional “children’s safety” argument to advance their collectivist agenda. What became commonplace during the Clinton presidency was to use children as pawns in the collectivist powerplay to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. Mr. Clinton attempted to pull at our emotional strings (for the children) as if somehow gun regulation would protect children. President Clinton said following the defeat of gun legislation in Congress, “It was a great victory for the NRA, but it was a great defeat for the safety of our children. So one more time the Congress of the United States, with the majority in the lead, says we don’t care what’s necessary to protect our children.”

Handgun Control, Inc., claimed, “Everyday we lose 13 children to gun violence in this country. … This debate is not about guns. It’s about children.”

WRONG! The fact is, 85% of the “children” we lose to “gun violence” are aged 15 to 19, and drawn from the ranks of the socially disenfranchised and gang-bangers.

The debate is not about children. It’s about control.

In truth, children’s safety has nothing to do with their real agenda. Disarming law abiding American citizens and slowly dismantling the United States Constitution is their ultimate aim. Their true agenda is to take away your right to defend yourself, your property, and ultimately the individual freedom you enjoy as Americans.

“Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children.” – Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

The New World Order Gun Control Agenda

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason

The real agenda behind the gun control movement is not “safety” or “children,” but is found in the goals of the collectivist New World Order. Their unspoken motive is to disarm the people, rendering them of necessity at the mercy of the standing army and increasingly, the police state.

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …”
Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Recently a globalist member of the United Nations stood before the U.S. Congress and proposed a bill revoking the second amendment to the Constitution. When he talked about the nullification of this amendment, he also talked about a global military controlled completely by the United Nations. If this amendment were nullified, all the homes in the United States would be searched and all weapons seized for the government. No one would be permitted to have anything that was designated as a weapon. As a bonus, he pointed out the United States would no longer be required to have a military. This is not the first time that this kind of bill has been presented to Congress. Fortunately, the bill was killed; but you can count on something like this being presented again.

The day after Barack Obama was re-elected President, the U.N. Committee on Gun Control contacted the Obama administration and renewed their desire to have meetings regarding gun control, to be implemented worldwide. So, the U.N. and the Obama administration is going to work to disarm America. At this point, the details have not been revealed.

Remember John Lennon’s plea for a new world order where there was nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. In order to have a New World Order and have only one military, the militaries of all nations must be dissolved and the peoples of the world disarmed.

An armed citizenry is a threat to the New World Order.  If people have weapons or they can obtain weapons, then they can resist the powers that shouldn’t be, which would be completely unacceptable to those in power.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

An epidemic of violence and harassment by those sworn to protect the public is sweeping the country. Taser deaths are skyrocketing because the police have been ordered to use “pain compliance”, otherwise known as torture, to subdue and oppress the citizenry. Police academies across America now teach their recruits that the general public are the enemy and that they can engage in outright brutality without recourse. These paramilitary police are trained in military tactics to quickly overpower their enemy using every resource and tool to force the weaker citizen to capitulate.

• In Denver, Colorado, 13 SWAT team members stormed the upstairs apartment of Ismael Mena looking for drugs. After breaking open the front door, the SWAT team found the door to Mena’s room latched, and kicked it in. Police say they found him armed with a .22 revolver, standing on his bed. Officers claim they screamed “Police!” and “Drop the gun!” repeatedly. Mena started to put the gun down, asking, “Policia?” But police say when they then moved to disarm him, he again raised the gun. Officers opened fire. Mena, a father of nine, was hit by eight bullets and killed instantly. No drugs were found. The next day, SWAT team officers learned they had raided the wrong residence-they should have gone next door.
• In Pennsylvania, a 21-year-old man with no prior offenses, was shot to death in his house by a squad of masked police dressed in ninja-style uniforms. They didn’t even knock before tossing a smoke grenade through a window, setting fire to the house. The unarmed John Hirko, suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, was found face down on his stairway, shot in the back while fleeing the fire.
  .

Some might argue the police brutality is limited to a few bad cops. However, the increased militarization of the police force is teaching all police officers to be more violent. It’s not uncommon for police officers to laugh at and make jokes about their exploits in dehumanizing citizens when they gather in the locker room or local cop bar. And, the so-called “blue code of silence” among officers keep most of their crimes hidden. When you see examples of police brutality on video, you’ll also see many more officers standing around that do nothing to prevent the violence and to protect the perpetrators. I would submit that most cops are bad, at the least complicit in the crimes, and there are only a few good ones.

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison.